California Republican party is an odd mix. There are a lot of social conservatives, a lot of basically fiscal conservatives, and a lot of libertarians. It's not endangered because they do have large numbers. They don't do as well as they probably should because the party in power has typically had first crack at reapportionment (granted not true the last time). Three of the last 5 governors were Republican, and one got the job because the Democratic governor decided not to renew a tax break and was recalled. All 5 of those governors are essentially moderates anyway.
And that's just Republicans. The two parties have their faithful from the extremes, but most people are in the middle. California allows a "decline to state" voting registration, and those numbers are pretty high, above 20%. Most of those numbers are at the expense of Republicans to be sure, as their numbers are declining. But that doesn't mean they're voting Democrat when they get in the voting booth.
So that's why I said that with a decent Republican candidate, someone with a good brain, decent personality, isn't an ass (isn't Trump), isn't a wacky extremist (no Palin or Cruz), tends more moderate than acting as party faithful. Hillary is not liked, not just by Trump or Republicans, but a lot of Democrats are holding their nose to vote for her, and not just the Bernie camp. The decline-to-states for sure are no fans of Hillary. So such a Republican candidate would stand a fair chance in California and the results would be close.
At the very least we'd have an interesting campaign based on issues and debate rather than a campaign that's interesting because of the personalities and drama.
The whispers don't work unless you put them on Twitter. Helps too if the tweet is from someone who can't use the toilet without sending a tweet while doing so.
I was surprised my mother had never heard of him, and she's very much religious conservative and actively believing everything the internet ever says. But probably that's because he wasn't high on the list of potential candidates (Trump is unpredictable) even in conservatives circles, so his name wasn't showing up in the email lists. But if I had said "the Indiana governor who passed that religioius exemptions bill" she'd have said "oh yes, him, I like him".
Never mind all that stuff. Trump has shown that he can break all the rules of thumb. Statistics isn't working well here. Statistics won't work well here because there isn't enough data to be meaningful.
As pointed out by the fivethirtyeight.com person when asked why he got it all wrong about Trump in the primary, after several reasons are given, it ultimately comes down to the very low number of elections we've had for where we've had primaries without incumbents running. We didn't have presidential primaries until the 20th century, and we didn't have binding presidential primaries until after 1968. In a popular primary process, someone like Trump may not really be a rare outlier.
Although conventional wisdom (as created by news media) says those three states are vital, it's only because those states tend to be relatively large swing states. But the definition of swing state depends upon how far back in history you go. Every election is different, and with changing times each state also becomes very different. Add ten years and the demographics aren't the same anymore. Ie, the anti-Castro rhetoric that won you Florida awhile back might backfire today or in four years. Looking at election maps we don't have blue versus red states, they're all slighty different shades of purple. They're 48-52 very often. Get a solid Republican candidate who's not crazy then it's not inconceivable that California could be a red state, but this gets discounted because every thinks it's locked up and will never swap despite us having several Republican governors in recent history.
So basically, if you're using stats and math to figure out what's going to happen with Trump then you're going to need to use much more sophisticated math than they use on the news outlets.
Yes, a non upgraded resh installation of windows 10 may be for older hardware that had at one time been upgrades. It's not only for new machines. Though to be fair, anyone putting Windows 10 on older machines probably deserves the results.
Too many devices are essentially USB HID, it's an ugly hack but common. This is done because it's a pain to get signed drivers if you want to run on that malware infested platform of choice.
"Allowing" unsigned drivers does not necessarily mean making it easy. Windows could still pop up a big warning when trying to do this and the require you to jump through some hoops. Denying unilaterally is the wrong move.
But we do know better than Microsoft in so many ways, just look at their spectacular missteps. Windows 10 is essentially a suicidal cry for help. Microsoft has never been an industry leader in technology, only a leader in sales.
Compare to browsers. You get a bad cert and it asks you want to do. You can select "yes, I really know what I'm doing", and if you don't know what you're doing you can screw yourself over. But the user has a choice here. People who know more than average are not treated as an undesirable class, and people who know less than average are protected.
Microsoft has a long history of removing choices and options with every release or service pack.
This applies to drivers already installed when upgrading to Windows 10. Re-install (while secure boot is on) then you're screwed, or do a clean install.
"To summarize, on non-upgraded fresh installations of Windows 10, version 1607 with Secure Boot ON, drivers must be signed by Microsoft or with cross-signed certificates issued prior to July 29th, 2015."
Because the security with the drivers is small potatoes as that's not where the majority of malware get their footholds. If Microsoft cared about users and put their security as top priority, then they'd have years of work to do before they got around to drivers.
Let the device manufacturers sign the drivers but sign them with any trustworthy body. If you trust the manufacturer then you trust the device. Microsoft however is not a trustworthy body, they are the opposite of trustworthy.
But that's minor compared to all the other gaping holes in Windows security. Which points back to the media companies being insistent that security preventing unauthorized recording be given top priority. They've done this for years now, graphics cards have tamper detection for this reason.
It'd be awful merely to be sentenced to England 100 years ago, it'd be even worse to be in an English colony. If you weren't born to the right parents your advancement options were slim. And 100 years ago the Great War was still in progress, probably pretty sucky to be male back then and stuck in a trench with all your superiors being upperclass twits fighting a pointless war because the major hobby in Europe those days was having wars. That's the whole reason for the EU anyway, an experiment to unite all these close neighbors rather than invading each other.
Used to have such a problem in the US. During the dust bowl there was a backlash against "Okies" moving to other states. At the a lot of people were labeled Okies even if they weren't from Oklahoma and only because they were from out of state and looking for a job. California even put up police at the borders for awhile to turn back people who had no money. And then Arizona was mad because they were stuck with the migrants instead.
Of course, there was sympathy because these were white migrants. The same didn't apply to legal Mexican workers (who's family had been in the state before it was in the US) and Filipino workers (Phillipines was a US possession at the time).
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much everything in 1965 was illegal.
I'm unsure which shame is worse.
California Republican party is an odd mix. There are a lot of social conservatives, a lot of basically fiscal conservatives, and a lot of libertarians. It's not endangered because they do have large numbers. They don't do as well as they probably should because the party in power has typically had first crack at reapportionment (granted not true the last time). Three of the last 5 governors were Republican, and one got the job because the Democratic governor decided not to renew a tax break and was recalled. All 5 of those governors are essentially moderates anyway.
And that's just Republicans. The two parties have their faithful from the extremes, but most people are in the middle. California allows a "decline to state" voting registration, and those numbers are pretty high, above 20%. Most of those numbers are at the expense of Republicans to be sure, as their numbers are declining. But that doesn't mean they're voting Democrat when they get in the voting booth.
So that's why I said that with a decent Republican candidate, someone with a good brain, decent personality, isn't an ass (isn't Trump), isn't a wacky extremist (no Palin or Cruz), tends more moderate than acting as party faithful. Hillary is not liked, not just by Trump or Republicans, but a lot of Democrats are holding their nose to vote for her, and not just the Bernie camp. The decline-to-states for sure are no fans of Hillary. So such a Republican candidate would stand a fair chance in California and the results would be close.
At the very least we'd have an interesting campaign based on issues and debate rather than a campaign that's interesting because of the personalities and drama.
Don't worry about it. The police will shoot first whether or not that pistol emoji actually turns out to be a water gun emoji.
The whispers don't work unless you put them on Twitter. Helps too if the tweet is from someone who can't use the toilet without sending a tweet while doing so.
I was surprised my mother had never heard of him, and she's very much religious conservative and actively believing everything the internet ever says. But probably that's because he wasn't high on the list of potential candidates (Trump is unpredictable) even in conservatives circles, so his name wasn't showing up in the email lists. But if I had said "the Indiana governor who passed that religioius exemptions bill" she'd have said "oh yes, him, I like him".
Never mind all that stuff. Trump has shown that he can break all the rules of thumb. Statistics isn't working well here. Statistics won't work well here because there isn't enough data to be meaningful.
As pointed out by the fivethirtyeight.com person when asked why he got it all wrong about Trump in the primary, after several reasons are given, it ultimately comes down to the very low number of elections we've had for where we've had primaries without incumbents running. We didn't have presidential primaries until the 20th century, and we didn't have binding presidential primaries until after 1968. In a popular primary process, someone like Trump may not really be a rare outlier.
Although conventional wisdom (as created by news media) says those three states are vital, it's only because those states tend to be relatively large swing states. But the definition of swing state depends upon how far back in history you go. Every election is different, and with changing times each state also becomes very different. Add ten years and the demographics aren't the same anymore. Ie, the anti-Castro rhetoric that won you Florida awhile back might backfire today or in four years. Looking at election maps we don't have blue versus red states, they're all slighty different shades of purple. They're 48-52 very often. Get a solid Republican candidate who's not crazy then it's not inconceivable that California could be a red state, but this gets discounted because every thinks it's locked up and will never swap despite us having several Republican governors in recent history.
So basically, if you're using stats and math to figure out what's going to happen with Trump then you're going to need to use much more sophisticated math than they use on the news outlets.
I woudl consider voting for a bulldog in lipstick that had an Oompa Loompa with tiny hands as as running mate, or vice versa.
Yes, a non upgraded resh installation of windows 10 may be for older hardware that had at one time been upgrades. It's not only for new machines. Though to be fair, anyone putting Windows 10 on older machines probably deserves the results.
I think we all need to start playing Pokemon Go now, or else onlookers will think we're sex offenders who aren't allowed to play it.
Too many devices are essentially USB HID, it's an ugly hack but common. This is done because it's a pain to get signed drivers if you want to run on that malware infested platform of choice.
"Allowing" unsigned drivers does not necessarily mean making it easy. Windows could still pop up a big warning when trying to do this and the require you to jump through some hoops. Denying unilaterally is the wrong move.
But we do know better than Microsoft in so many ways, just look at their spectacular missteps. Windows 10 is essentially a suicidal cry for help. Microsoft has never been an industry leader in technology, only a leader in sales.
Which anyone with a brain should do (meaning anyone interested in using their PC for something other than Windows on it someday).
Compare to browsers. You get a bad cert and it asks you want to do. You can select "yes, I really know what I'm doing", and if you don't know what you're doing you can screw yourself over. But the user has a choice here. People who know more than average are not treated as an undesirable class, and people who know less than average are protected.
Microsoft has a long history of removing choices and options with every release or service pack.
This applies to drivers already installed when upgrading to Windows 10. Re-install (while secure boot is on) then you're screwed, or do a clean install.
"To summarize, on non-upgraded fresh installations of Windows 10, version 1607 with Secure Boot ON, drivers must be signed by Microsoft or with cross-signed certificates issued prior to July 29th, 2015."
Because the security with the drivers is small potatoes as that's not where the majority of malware get their footholds. If Microsoft cared about users and put their security as top priority, then they'd have years of work to do before they got around to drivers.
Let the device manufacturers sign the drivers but sign them with any trustworthy body. If you trust the manufacturer then you trust the device. Microsoft however is not a trustworthy body, they are the opposite of trustworthy.
But that's minor compared to all the other gaping holes in Windows security. Which points back to the media companies being insistent that security preventing unauthorized recording be given top priority. They've done this for years now, graphics cards have tamper detection for this reason.
And it's those eastern Europeans who got the brunt of xenophobic backlash the day after the Brexit vote.
It'd be awful merely to be sentenced to England 100 years ago, it'd be even worse to be in an English colony. If you weren't born to the right parents your advancement options were slim. And 100 years ago the Great War was still in progress, probably pretty sucky to be male back then and stuck in a trench with all your superiors being upperclass twits fighting a pointless war because the major hobby in Europe those days was having wars. That's the whole reason for the EU anyway, an experiment to unite all these close neighbors rather than invading each other.
Used to have such a problem in the US. During the dust bowl there was a backlash against "Okies" moving to other states. At the a lot of people were labeled Okies even if they weren't from Oklahoma and only because they were from out of state and looking for a job. California even put up police at the borders for awhile to turn back people who had no money. And then Arizona was mad because they were stuck with the migrants instead.
Of course, there was sympathy because these were white migrants. The same didn't apply to legal Mexican workers (who's family had been in the state before it was in the US) and Filipino workers (Phillipines was a US possession at the time).
Lemme get this straight... People want their keyboard app synced with the cloud?
We also defeated the British in the Revolutionary War, and we nae spake English since!
The best part is your post was marked +5 interesting instead of +5 funny.
You can get a luxury suite in Brazilian jails though.